Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-08-18

that the plaintiff in the above entitled
cause, and after the signing and de
livering and receiving the considera
ton named therein of the release re
ferred to in the supplemental answer
filed herein, stated that her mother
sister and one of her attorneys haC
written to her very severe letters con
demning her for having compromised
or settled the said suit, and that they
| all urged her to return to Los Angeles
] and to say that the settlement was OBJ
/ tanned from her on the pretense that
her attorneys were trying to settle the
case outside of her, and that she had
discovered the same to be false, and
that if she would return she could
hand back the money and set aside
the assignment on the ground o.
fraud, and they demanded that she
should come back or that she would
be dealt with in very serious man
ner, at the same time making threats
against her. That she further stated
that the parties above referred to in
formed her that if she did not return
that her attorneys would proceed tc
get judgment against her for their
services and costs in the matter
and that she could never hold
any property IN her name in
this State, and that she would be
obliged to leave the State of Califor.
mia. That she furthermore stated that
when she was in a very great furry
and excitement one day that her
counsel procured from her an assign.
ment of her judgement obtained in
this action; that she did not known
what it was at the time she signed the
paper assigning said judgement or she
would not have signed it, and that
they had deceived her into signing
said assignment, but now, as the
judgement was set aside, that they
informed her that it would be neces-
sary for her to assign anew if they
procured new judgment, and that
the assignment would not hold good,
and that it was of no force or effect
at this time. That they informed her
that she would be obliged to make a
new assignment before they could
hold the Judgment for their fees and
costs and the same would be hers.
That they informed her that all
charges and outlays which they held
against her were $500 and that if she
would come back and do as they said
she would get a big judgment and be
better off. That they were making
all kinds of propositions to get her
back.
And atfiant further says upon infor-
nation and belief that the plaintiff re-
fused to return or prosecute
said suit further until she
was induced to do so by
the offers made aforesaid, and threats
and coercion used by the mother of
the said plaintiff. That the plaintiffs
said mother visited San Francisco and
used threatening language and coer-
cion to induce her, the said plaintiff.
to come back and prosecute the said
suit further, and induced her to re-
turn here to impeach said settlement, if
possible, in order that the suit might
be carried forward, and that thereby
they could procure more money from
the defendant. That atfiant is in
formed and believes, and so states the
fact to be that said plaintiff refused to
return to this city or to take any fur
ther part in said action until Saturday
or Sunday August 18th or 14th, 1887,
and then consented only under coer-
cion, threats and inducements made
and held out as aforesaid. So to do
that her mother with other parties
accompanied her upon her return, and
that she was met at the depot by her
attorneys and in company and under
the surveillance of her mother and
other parties she was taken directly to
her mothers house and was there
placed in private apartments and was
prevented from seeing or having con-
versation with any other person or
persons than her attorneys or her
household, and that since her
return she has not been permitted to
be alone or in conversation with any
other person or persons, except in the
presence of either her counsel or her
mother. That admission to her has
been denied, and that she still remains
subject to the control and will of her
attorneys and her mother. And
afiiant further states that he is in
formed and believes that if the said
force and threats aforesaid had not
been used, that the said plaintiff
would not have returned to Los An
geles to prosecute said action, nor
would she have taken any further ac-
ton therein, but would have kept and
performed the conditions of her obli-
cations which he alleges were entered
into freely on her part, without any
intimidation, fraud or undue influence
on the part of the defendant herein, or
any of his agents.
Afliant further alleges, in reply to
plaintiff s affidavit, that the said
Lucas therein mentioned was not the
agent of the defendant in the matter
of said settlement, nor was he en-
ployed by defendant or authorized to
represent him therein, but that said
Lucas claimed to, and in fact repre-
sented the plaintiff therein.
(Signed) H. A. UNRUH.
When this document had been filed
Mr.. White asked if any argument was
necessary. Judge O'Melveny replied
that he did not desire to hear argu-
ment, and said that he thought the
defendants should have time to prop
erly prepare their case. After some
consideration as to the time the case
should be set for, Judge O'Melveny
finally decided that it would be i'm
possible to hear it until November 9TH,
for which day it was finally set for
hearing.
When this decision had been an
nounced Mr.. White took the affidavit
filed by Mr.. Unruh, and, after reading
it, denounced the statements as re-
CARDS the attorneys to be false. He
also said that he intended to answer
it, and late in the afternoon he filed
the following with the County Clerk !:
s. M. WHITES AFFIDAVIT.
Stephen Nj. White being first duly
sworn, says: That he has read the
affidavit OF H. A. Unruh, filed in said
cause upon this day, and has read the
statements therein contained. That
it is not true that plaintiffs attorneys
~ l. H.